NEW YORK  Despite the high profile that Nancy Reagan and others have given the idea of using embryonic stem cells to treat Alzheimer's disease, advances are likely to come faster from other approaches.

Experts cite other more promising efforts that in five to 10 years may be used to fight the disease that led to President Reagan's death.

"I just think everybody feels there are higher priorities for seeking effective treatments for Alzheimer's disease and for identifying preventive strategies," said Marilyn Albert, a Johns Hopkins University researcher who chairs the Medical and Scientific Advisory Council of the Alzheimer's Association.

Stem cells from human embryos can form all types of cells, and the hope is that they one day could be used to replace cells damaged from such conditions as diabetes, spinal cord injury or Parkinson's disease. But experts say Alzheimer's, by the very nature of how it attacks the brain, would pose a far more daunting challenge to that approach.

"There's an awful lot going on right now that perhaps holds a little bit more immediate promise for trying to slow the disease, or even cut off its development," said Marcelle Morrison-Bogorad, associate director of the National Institute on Aging's neuroscience and neuropsychology-of-aging program.

She and Albert cited, for example, efforts to attack the buildup of clumps of protein called amyloid in the brain, and methods for spotting the disease early. That research will probably pay off in five or 10 years, earlier than any expected advances from stem cells, Albert said, because so much has to be learned about how to make stem cells useful against the disease.

"All the more reason we should start [stem cell efforts] now, because it's going to take a long time," she said.

About 4.5 million Americans have Alzheimer's, a progressive brain disorder that gradually destroys memory and ability to learn, reason, communicate and do everyday activities. Patients die on average eight years after symptoms appear, although the disease can linger for 20 years.

"What you're dealing with here is a mind in disarray," Morrison-Bogorad said. Connections between brain cells are being lost, neurons are dying and becoming dysfunctional, the amyloid plaques are building up between brain cells and protein tangles are showing up within cells. And there's inflammation.

"It's just a mess in there," she said. "But the mess means there are so many targets for intervention."

The amyloid plaques have emerged as a favorite target, and scientists and drug companies around the world are studying ways to prevent or destroy them.

One high-profile approach is a vaccine that primes the body to attack amyloid. Studies on animals were encouraging, but in 2002 a study on people was halted when several vaccine recipients developed brain inflammation. Last year, researchers reported that the vaccine did appear to reduce the accumulation of plaques in one study participant.

Work is continuing now on a safer vaccine, because the available evidence suggests "this is an important avenue to pursue," Albert said.

Another popular approach seeks to keep the brain from making the abnormal form of amyloid that creates the plaques. It's a high priority at "every major drug company," Albert said.

The overall focus on amyloid makes her optimistic.

"Everybody's working on it," she said. "What we've learned from the past is that if everybody works really hard at something that is sensible, they're likely to make a lot of progress. So there's just enormous optimism that in five years, or certainly 10 years, we'll have much more effective treatments."

Another key research area is finding a way to predict who will get Alzheimer's before symptoms appear. Because the disease develops over many years, much damage has been done by the time it's diagnosed. So scientists want to identify people at an earlier stage for the day when more effective treatments become available.

In the same vein, scientists want to find ways to track the progress of the disease in people being treated, so they can quickly tell if the treatment is helping.

So researchers are doing long-term studies to see if different kinds of brain scans, mental tests and spinal or blood tests can predict development or progression of the disease.

Lifestyle factors too, such as taking anti-inflammatory drugs and vitamins like E and C, are being studied to see if they can help prevent Alzheimer's or delay it.

Researchers are also exploring the use of cholesterol-lowering drugs. A relatively recent idea, Albert said, is that things like keeping cholesterol and blood pressure low and staying physically active may help. Those steps are well-known for countering heart disease, she noted.

But it's becoming clearer, she said, that "if you do things that are good for your heart, they'll be good for your brain."

I believe the embryonic stem cell argument is just a pro abortion fantasy science argument. There is an organization that is using umbilical cord stem cells that are pretty close, don't involve death, and no one is concerned about the morality. But the funny thing is...It doesn't make the news!

SATAN's Deception, Bias in the Media, and lots of Money. And just more Spin by the DemonRat party linking stem cells and the so-called "right to Choose". There are lot's of ways to use ADULT stem cells from our own bodies, our own body fat and umbilical cords which are now stored after birth. Even FOX news is NOT differentiating between ADULT and EMBRYONIC stem cells. The deception continues.".

By the way those who like to do something for people with dementia can visit them in nursing homes.I happen to do this once a week. The patients are at various stages. Some for instance have some long-term memory that you can use for conversation.You will go home with the wonderful feeling that you got much more out of it than you put into it.

Hopefully progress is made quickly without the use of embryonic stem cells.>>>

Progress has already been made:

*In 2000, Israeli scientists implanted Melissa Holley's white blood cells into her spinal cord to treat the paraplegia caused when her spinal cord was severed in an auto accident. Melissa, who is 18, has since regained control over her bladder and recovered significant motor function in her limbs - she can now move her legs and toes, although she cannot yet walk.

This is exactly the kind of therapy that embryonic-stem-cell proponents promise - years down the road. Yet Melissa's breakthrough was met with collective yawns in the press with the exception of Canada's The Globe and Mail. Non-embryonic stem cells may be as common as beach sand.

They have been successfully extracted from umbilical cord blood, placentas, fat, cadaver brains, bone marrow, and tissues of the spleen, pancreas, and other organs. Even more astounding, the scientists who cloned Dolly the sheep successfully created cow heart tissue using stem cells from cow skin. And just this week, Singapore scientists announced that they have transformed bone-marrow cells into heart muscle.

Research with these cells also has a distinct moral advantage: It doesn't require the destruction of a human embryo. You don't have to be pro-life to be more comfortable with that.

*In another Parkinson's case, a patient treated with his own brain stem cells appears to have experienced a substantial remission with no adverse side effects. Dennis Turner was expected by this time to require a wheelchair and extensive medication. Instead, he has substantially reduced his medication and rarely reports any noticeable symptoms of his Parkinson's. Human trials in this technique are due to begin soon.

*Bone marrow stem cells, blood stem cells, and immature thigh muscle cells have been used to grow new heart tissue in both animal subjects and human patients. Indeed, while it was once scientific dogma that damaged heart muscle could not regenerate, it now appears that cells taken from a patient's own body may be able to restore cardiac function. Human trials using adult stem cells have commenced in Europe and other nations. (The FDA is requiring American researchers to stick with animal studies for now to test the safety of the adult stem cell approach.)

*Harvard Medical School researchers reversed juvenile onset diabetes (type-1) in mice using "precursor cells" taken from spleens of healthy mice and injecting them into diabetic animals. The cells transformed into pancreatic islet cells. The technique will begin human trials as soon as sufficient funding is made available.

*In the United States and Canada, more than 250 human patients with type-1 diabetes were treated with pancreatic tissue (islet) transplantations taken from human cadavers. Eighty percent of those who completed the treatment protocol have achieved insulin independence for over a year. (Good results have been previously achieved with pancreas transplantation, but the new approach may be much safer than a whole organ transplant.)

*Blindness is one symptom of diabetes. Now, human umbilical cord blood stem cells have been injected into the eyes of mice and led to the growth of new human blood vessels. Researchers hope that the technique will eventually provide an efficacious treatment for diabetes-related blindness. Scientists also are experimenting with using cord blood stem cells to inhibit the growth of blood vessels in cancer, which could potentially lead to a viable treatment.

*Bone marrow stem cells have partially helped regenerate muscle tissue in mice with muscular dystrophy. Much more research is needed before final conclusions can be drawn and human studies commenced. But it now appears that adult stem cells may well provide future treatments for neuromuscular diseases.

*Severed spinal cords in rats were regenerated using gene therapy to prevent the growth of scar tissue that inhibits nerve regeneration. The rats recovered the ability to walk within weeks of receiving the treatments. The next step will be to try the technique with monkeys. If that succeeds, human trials would follow.

* In separate experiments, scientists researched the ability of embryonic and adult mouse pancreatic stem cells to regenerate the body's ability to make insulin. Both types of cells boosted insulin production in diabetic mice. The embryonic success made a big splash with prominent coverage in all major media outlets. Yet the same media organs were strangely silent about the research involving adult cells.

Stranger still, the adult-cell experiment was far more successful - it raised insulin levels much more. Indeed, those diabetic mice lived, while the mice treated with embryonic cells all died. Why did the media celebrate the less successful experiment and ignore the more successful one?

* Another barely reported story is that alternative-source stem cells are already healing human illnesses.

*In Los Angeles, the transplantation of stem cells harvested from umbilical-cord blood has saved the lives of three young boys born with defective immune systems.

Don't know where I'd find the time. I baby sit my almost 2-yr. old grandson, 5 days a week. (I'm getting on in yrs., too.) I've been taking care of him since he was 6 weeks old. I refuse to allow him in 'day care'.

On weekends, I get caught up on my household chores.

13
posted on 06/12/2004 6:43:28 PM PDT
by the Deejay
(Not to be confused with a "man", I am a "lady.")

"However! The disease isn't what he died from, no one dies from it, in RR's case, he had broken his hip, didn't recover and he got pneumonia. That's what killed RR."

I did aome study into Alzheimer's a few years ago when I had an aunt who had it. Alzheimer's patients don't die from the disease itself; they die from various maladies that their weakened bodies cannot cope with. I seem to recall that it is fairly comon for Alzheimers' patients to die of pneumonia.

We need more posts like this. The left-wing media wants people to believe that embryonic is the only kind of stem cells. They just want to be able to kill human life at any and all stages.

Kerry and the other Rats are going to try to make stem cell research a campaign issue, hoping to exploit the death of Ronald Reagan, and all of the attention given to Alzheimer's' in the past week. (How much did Kerry say on this subject prior to President Reagan's passing?) Leave it to them to see the loss of this Great Man as an opportunity for political gain.

I would rather spend our hard earned dollars on taking care of babies than finding cures for the illnesses of old age.

Life has a beginning and an end. The beginning, to my mind, is more important than the end. I can say that, since i am nearer the end than the start of life.

Every baby deserves the very best start, with two parents who love him/her, and who will meet his/her needs as best they can.

At the end of life, we should rejoice. For we have done our duty, and however the end comes, it really doesn't matter that much. It is fair to hope that we do not suffer unbearable pain in our elder years, but we cannot expect endless tax dollars to be spent on the ills of age.

As an elderly one with all the aches and pains, I would rather the research money be spent on helping the babies, and let us older folk just endure, for there is wisdom to be learned from the viccisitudes of ageing.

Too bad so many want to avoid the twilight of life. Too bad so many want to avoid acquiring wisdom, and would rather have a lift and tuck, so they can pretend to be younger and dumber.

Thanks for posting those links on this article. I knew I had read this someplace! What a travesty and fraud that the scientific community has committed on people like Nancy Reagan and others to give them the idea that stem cells from embryo's was the best thing to use for this disease.

25
posted on 06/12/2004 8:46:19 PM PDT
by PhiKapMom
(AOII Mom -- Oklahoma is Reagan Country and now Bush Country -- Win Another One for the Gipper!)

It seems obvious that the media and the Democrats have raised this issue at this time not only because they favor abortion, but because they saw an opportunity to pit Bush against Nancy Reagan and put more distance between Bush and Reagan. So far it has failed, but it's absolutely typical of the relentless scheming by the leftist perverts who control the press.

I seem to recall that it is fairly comon for Alzheimers' patients to die of pneumonia

"A" patients can be in the best of health physically - however, as the disease progresses, the part of the brain that tells the body to partake of nutrition offered stops. Then begins starvation. Another part of the brain stops telling the body to swallow. Thus, even saliva can aspirate into the lungs causing pneumonia. There are few things more hurtful than having your spouse or parent look at you and have no idea who you are. But you continue your caretaking because you remember who they are.

Dying from pneumonia would be common in Alzheimer's patients because the immune system is controlled by the brain that recognizes the plethora of diseases from the common cold to pneumonia, and the shutting down of the central nervous system would not allow the brain to communicate with the other body organs to react to foreign viruses invading the body. This is why Ronald Reagan couldn't verbalize Michael's name in the waning months and years of being succombed to Alzheimers because that too is also a brain function.

Being forgetful, unable to speak clearly, falling down, being bedridden, and contracting pneumonia, all clear signs of Alzheimers.

Ten years is quite a long time. I've read articles on the web that say some Alzheimers patients can live 20 to 50 years with Alzheimers.

29
posted on 06/12/2004 11:05:34 PM PDT
by BigSkyFreeper
(John Kerry: An old creep, with gray hair, trying to look like he's 30 years old.)

Yep. In the advancing stages of Alzheimers, those who have the disease cannot feed, drive, clothe, or bathe themselves, they become dependant upon others to do menial tasks such as brushing their teeth, coordinating their outfits, running errands, they even reach the point that they can get lost in their own home, or think the caretaker is someone who broke into their home and lash out at the caretaker. For a caretaker, they're doing the job of two people, the one they're caring for, and running their own personal life. Caretaking can become so stressful. It's been a two year "learning experience" for me as a caretaker to my grandmother.

30
posted on 06/12/2004 11:12:33 PM PDT
by BigSkyFreeper
(John Kerry: An old creep, with gray hair, trying to look like he's 30 years old.)

Not to mention the fact that he lived well beyond the normal life span.

I just wonder when we have a cure for all these elder conditions who is going to take care of and support all these people who live well into their hundreds? Its not going to be like they can still run around and or even walk.

With the amount of people in nursing homes already I can only imagine how it will be. It is very hard to take care of an elder in their 90's late 90's even with minor dementia. Grandchildren are often very lax in doing so as well when their parents now in their 70's also need care.

Are elders going to stop breaking their hips in there 90's also after we find this cure? I think not.

I commend you for taking care of your grandmother. I took care of my great grandmother from 95 to 98. She fell and broke both hips in 98 and spent one year in nursing home before she passed on.

Not many grandchildren are going to take care of their grandparents nor do many now.

My gram lived longer then 2 of her 3 children and her surviving son lived in another state and we felt it best to keep her with me. Also I knew she preferred to be with me because she never had a good relationship with her daughter in law.

After she went to home I suffered through depression because I could not believe I didnt have to worry about her anymore. Her passing while sad was not tragic. I knew her heart would stop beating someday as will all of ours.

I did aome study into Alzheimer's a few years ago when I had an aunt who had it. Alzheimer's patients don't die from the disease itself; they die from various maladies that their weakened bodies cannot cope with. I seem to recall that it is fairly comon for Alzheimers' patients to die of pneumonia.

Was the pneumonia related to the Alzheimers, or was Reagan just more susceptible to it because he was 93-years old?

"Ten years is quite a long time. I've read articles on the web that say some Alzheimers patients can live 20 to 50 years with Alzheimers."

Twenty years I could believe - I think 10 years was the average - and this was 5 or 6 years ago. However, I find it hard to believe someone could live 50 years with it. If they did, the last 20 or 30 years of their lives would be spent in a vegetative state. That assumes no drugs which retard the progression of the disease.

The modest benefits received from the drugs used to treat Alzheimers disease are causing doctors to second-guess prescribing them to patients to treat memory and cognitive problems. While advocates of the drug remain hopeful, others have expressed their doubts on the effectiveness of these drugs.

Conflicting opinions from the experts ranged from prescribing the patients the drugs for six to eight weeks, then quit if there was no sign of improvement, to prescribing the drugs for a six-month period.

Startling statistics on Alzheimers disease:

4.5 million Americans suffer from Alzheimers disease

Most family members feel that drugs are the only answer to slowing down the disease

Alzheimers patients usually take one drug

Estimated cost of each drug: $120 a month

The overall costs of Americans taking the drugs are $1.2 billion a year

Researchers are continuing to search for new treatments, however there doesnt appear to be a cure in the near future. Even though some research has shown improvements after taking the drug, the changes arent significant enough for the Food and Drug Administrations (FDA) approval.

Presently the four drugs being used to treat Alzheimers disease include Aricept, Exelon, Reminyl and Tacrine. Each of these drugs was found to raise levels of acetylcholine, a chemical that sends nerve signals to the brain.

A fifth drug, Namenda, targets a different neurotransmitter and was approved for moderate to severe cases.

Several doctors expressed their concerns that hundreds of millions of dollars are being wasted on these drugs. Families continue to rely on medications for their family members, out of fear that if they stop the medication, their family member might experience a sharp decline in the disease.

The question I've not heard asked is this: would you be willing to die for one of the many clamoring for stem-cell research? That is what they are demanding - that someone else give their life for another.

"That is what they (those demanding fetal stem cell research and applications) are demanding - that someone else give their life for another." Actually, the operant word isn't 'give' it is take ... those demanding fetal stem cell exploitation are all for taking the life of the fetal aged human being in order to try for medical treatments of older individual human beings.

46
posted on 06/15/2004 9:28:07 PM PDT
by MHGinTN
(If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)

While listening to the Stacey Taylor show online from KOGO, I heard the host close questioning the rationale behind President Bush's opposition to stem-cell research. His reasoning was that there are left-over embryoes from fertility treatment activities, so why not use them? There's always an opening, it seems, to cheapen life, to classify certain groups as not worthy of consideration. When is it ever right to bring death to the innocent? And how is it our position is the one that is intolerant, when the "Enlightened Ones" will not tolerate the most fundamental right of a whole [class/age/race -- take your pick]?

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.